Skip links

Unleashing the Power of Community via OATH Governance

Within this article, we will venture into the key components of the OATH Governance Specification, encompassing the variety of governance proposal types, the voting process, and the multiple avenues available for community engagement. Together, we’re capable of carving a path towards a thoroughly decentralized future: one that is steeped in transparency, inclusiveness, and the collective ambition for a vibrant OATH ecosystem.

OATH's journey towards decentralized governance will begin in two phases.

Phase I: Kickstarting the Journey

First, get familiar with the GPRC, or Governance Proposal Review Committee. The GPRC is comprised of six delegates, and exists to ensure OATH governance can’t be taken advantage of by blocking malicious governance proposals and performing due diligence on all potential changes to the OATH ecosystem in Phase I. Additionally, the GPRC will help community members bring their ideas to life by assisting in proposal writing, answering questions, and socializing proposals with the broader community.

To start, the GPRC will be comprised of 4 contributors of the OATH ecosystem and 2 external community members. GPRC members will attend each committee meeting and ensure transparency and community values remain at the forefront of Governance operations.

Next, we’re excited to unveil the OATH Governance Forum which can be found at This platform acts as a medium for engaging discussions around topics relevant to OATH and allows users to put forth governance proposals to the community. Once a proposal gains the backing of three Delegates, it advances to the GPRC for review. The GPRC will then provide a recommendation, and, if the proposal is found to have no negative implications on the ecosystem, the voting process commences.

The voting process is where Snapshot steps in as the go-to platform owing to its user-friendly voting features. Notably, Snapshot facilitates custom voting strategies, which will be adopted for OATH governance votes. OATH token holders will possess 1.0x decision weight, and bOATH holders will enjoy 1.5x voting power. We believe this approach will amplify governance participation and empower LPs to steer the ecosystem’s direction more effectively.

OATH's journey towards decentralized governance will begin in two phases.

Another crucial aspect of Phase I is the Minimum Implementation Threshold (MIT) — the amount of voting power necessary for a governance proposal’s execution. During Phase I, the MIT requires 5% of the circulating supply to vote to reach quorum, and only proposals meeting or exceeding this limit can proceed further in the governance process. While a high threshold, the MIT can be changed via a governance vote if the community deems that the requirement is too restrictive.

Now that we’re in the weeds, let’s chat about what types of governance proposals users will encounter on the forum:

  • Ecosystem Sentiment Votes: non-binding OATH holder perspective votes
  • Funding Proposals: conduct product maintenance, visual enhancements, new analytics, or upgrades to OATH ecosystem dApps, software, front-end websites, etc.
  • Gauge Votes: distribute OATH emissions to designated gauges across the OATH ecosystem
  • OATH Improvement Proposals (OIPs): improving current OATH dApp via external dApp integrations, support new networks, etc
  • Token Grants: open-ended token grants for proposal teams to create marketing campaigns, new OATH product development, media content creation, etc.

Rounding off the Phase I details, this initial phase is expected to span roughly six months or until the GPRC determines that the community is ready to transition to Phase II. In order to move to the next Phase the GPRC will submit a proposal to the community that affirms the planned specification for Phase II or provides updates to the model for the ecosystem to weigh in on prior to implementation. Wow, that’s quite a lot to take in! Do note that the Governance Specification can be found linked here for your reference.

We haven’t even started on Phase II yet! So, get ready, here it comes.

OATH's journey towards decentralized governance will begin in two phases.

Phase II: Further Empowering the Community to Drive OATH Forward

Phase II represents a significant leap towards full community empowerment. While many aspects remain consistent between Phase I and Phase II, there are significant changes that take center stage:

  • Introduction of a mandatory Community Delegate Election
  • Community Delegates increase from six to seven
  • MIT increase from 5% of the circulating supply to 10%
  • Second MIT requirement: a minimum number of OATH/bOATH holding wallets need to participate in a proposal vote to move forward to implementation

The most significant change in phase II will be to the MIT. These strategic adjustments challenge users to rally the larger community’s support when considering/voting on a governance proposal, as they must make a compelling case to achieve social consensus. Additionally, the second MIT requirement necessitates actively marketing the proposal to all OATH/bOATH holders, further engaging the community in pushing the ecosystem forward in a unified way.

These elevated requirements also serve as a safeguard, ensuring that proposals with the potential to harm the ecosystem face greater scrutiny with a lower probability of passing unnoticed.

It is worth noting that these thresholds can be adjusted through governance if the community so desires. The specifications set forth in this article are not set in stone, but rather a foundation on which the community can build, modify, and iterate upon.

As the journey embarks towards full decentralized governance, all OATH contributors and users should encourage everyone to actively participate and make their voices heard through the OATH Governance forum. Remember, OATH’s success hinges on the active involvement and collective power of its community.

Together, let’s transform the vision of a beautiful and thriving future into a tangible reality.

Stay tuned and join in the discussion at